Search

In August 2013, the Queensland Government engaged the Commercial and Property Law Research Centre (the Centre ) at the Queensland University of Technology ( QUT ) to conduct an independent and broad - ranging review of Queensland's property laws. The purpose of this review is to identify options for reducing red tape, unnecessary regulation and property law duplication. A core element of the review includes the options for the modernisation, simplification, clarification and reform of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) in light of case law, the operation of other related legislation and changes in practice. The review also includes a range of issues involving community titles schemes arising under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld) ( BCCM Act ) . The Centre has previously prepared a number of Issues Papers and Final Re commendations , which have been released by the Department of Justice and Attorney - General. This report , which is the final paper to consider body corporate issues, follows from Property Law Review Issues Paper: Consistency between the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 and the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 ( Issues Paper ) and deals with the Building Units and Group Titles Act 1980 (Qld) ( BUGTA ). The BUGTA remains in effect for a number of mixed use and resort developments throughout the State which are facilitated by specific legislation referred to as the specified Acts . The specified Acts are: - Integrated Resort Development Act 1987 (Qld) ( IRDA ) ; - Mixed Use Development Act 1993 (Qld) ( MUDA ) ; - Registration of Plans (HSP (Nominees) Pty Limited) Enablin g Act 1980 (Qld) ( HSP Nominees ); - Registration of Plans (Stage 2) (HSP (Nominees) Pty Limited) Enabling Act 1984 (Qld) ( HSP Nominees Stage 2 ); and - Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985 (Qld) ( SCRA ).

The Commercial and Property Law Research Centre (the Centre) at the Queensland University of Technology ( QUT ) was established in 2013. The Centre is a specialist network of researchers with a vision of reforming legal and regulatory frameworks in the commercial and property law sector through high impact applied research. In August 201 3, on instructions from the ‐ then Attorney General, Jarrod Bleijie, the Centre commenced a review of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) with the objective of modernisation, simplification, clarification and reform of the Act in light of case law, the operation of other related legislation and changes in practice. The Review Panel for the Property La w Review comprised Professor Bill Duncan, Professor Sharon Christensen and Associate Professor Bill Dixon all of QUT Law Faculty and the Commercial and Property Law Research Centre for the duration of the review. Senior Research Associates for the project were Riccardo Rivera (August 2013 ‐ December 2017), Megan Window (August 2013 ‐ Oct 2016) and Trisch Partridge (March 2017 ‐ December 2017). The Review Panel was asked to make recommendations to modernise the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) with particular regard to: - changes in property transactional processes; - the advent of electronic conveyancing and contracting; - the fact that there is now no old system land in Queensland; and; - that Queensland has had an electronic land register since 1994

Since 1 January 2018, settlement notices can no longer be deposited in the Queensland Titles Registry with the previous settlement notice regime replaced by a priority notice regime. This article examines differences between the two regimes and highlights the practical operation of the provisions of the new Part 7A of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) dealing with priority notices.

Termination for convenience clauses continue to be commonly encountered in commercial contracts. To delineate between circumstances where these clauses may be safely relied upon to terminate contracts and circumstances where the invocation of these clauses may be successfully resisted involves a nuanced challenge for commercial parties and their advisors. This article examines the complex matrix of factors likely to impinge on this determination.

The passing of the Retail Shop Leases Amendment Act 2016 (Qld) heralds significant changes to the operation of the Retail Shop Leases Act 1994 (Qld). This article examines the background to, and operation of, these imminent changes.

The decision of Flanagan J in Miller v Loel [2016] QSC 289 represented the culmination of a considerable saga arising from a joint venture where the relationship between the joint venture parties had markedly deteriorated over time. Among the main issues for consideration in this case was whether a caveat lodged on behalf of one of the parties to the joint venture by their solicitor had been lodged or continued without reasonable cause and, if so, had the plaintiffs established that they suffered loss or damage as a result so as to be entitled to compensation under s 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). In the result, Flanagan J held that the caveat had been lodged and continued with reasonable cause and the plaintiffs’ claim was dismissed. The decision is noteworthy in that it raises two (2) issues of considerable practical relevance.

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. A key issue in an application under s 180 is compensation. Unfortunately, while s 180 expressly contemplates that an order for compensation will include provision for payment of compensation to the owner of servient land there are certain issues that are less clear. One of these is the basis for determination of the amount of compensation. In this regard, s 180(4)(a) provides that, in making an order for a statutory right of user, the court: (a) shall, except in special circumstances, include provision for payment by the applicant to such person or persons as may be specified in the order of such amount by way of compensation or consideration as in the circumstances appears to the court to be just The operation of this statutory provision was considered by de Jersey CJ (as he then was) in Peulen v Agius [2015] QSC 137.

The decision of Henry J in Majet v Goggin and Miller (as joint and several trustees of bankrupt estate of Brett-Hall) [2015] QSC 38 dealt with the fate of a deposit that was paid under a real estate contract that did not complete in unusual circumstances.

Re Brooks’ Caveat [2014] QSC 76 is a decision of Henry J delivered on 24 April 2014. The decision considers the operation of s 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld). That section provides that a person who lodges or continues a caveat without reasonable cause must compensate anyone else who suffers loss or damage as a result...

The case is noteworthy for its consideration of the relevance of circumstances arising after formation of the contract of sale in a summary judgment context...

Scenario 1 A buys a two storey commercial building built along the only street frontage to the property. Vehicles cannot reach the rear of the property as the building extends across the entire width of the land. A bought the building with full knowledge that vehicular access to the rest of the property had been compromised by a desire to obtain maximum street frontage for the building which was occupied by a commercial tenant. On street parking is scarce in the surrounding area. A (to the knowledge of the adjoining owner B) constructs a carpark at the rear of the building. The employees of A’s tenant have been using the carpark obtaining access via a driveway on B’s land. To formalise this arrangement, A seeks a right of way for vehicles to travel down B’s driveway to access the carpark...

A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal dealt with the liability of a purchaser to pay a termination penalty where a contract for the purchase of a residential property was terminated during the ‘cooling-off’ period. The decision is Lucy Cole Prestige Properties Broadbeach Pty Ltd ATF Gaindri FT Trust t/as Lucy Cole Prestige Properties Broadbeach Pty Ltd v Kastrissios [2013] QCAT 653.

Section 180 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) makes provision for an applicant to seek a statutory right of user over a neighbour’s property where such right of use is reasonably necessary in the interests of effective use in any reasonable manner of the dominant land. In recent years, the Queensland courts have been confronted with a number of such applications. Litigation has also been common in New South Wales which has a statutory provision in largely similar terms. This article seeks to identify those factors that have underpinned successful applications, the obstacles that an applicant may encounter and the considerations that have guided the courts when considering the associated issues of compensation and costs.

Where a secured lender elects to appoint a receiver and manager, the appointment document standardly provides for the receiver and manager to act as the agent of the debtor. This article considers the significance of this agency in the context of three specific issues that have the potential to arise in the receivership of a corporate borrower across all Australian jurisdictions.

An unusual factual situation recently arose for consideration by Lindsay J of the Federal Circuit Court. In Carter v Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd [2013] FCCA 783, an application was brought by the owners of a residential property in Western Australia, the Carters, for damages for misleading or deceptive conduct under s 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (“ACL”) and for damages for breach of contract arising from an auction of their house. Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd was a trustee of a family trust with Mr Ilahi being a director and shareholder of the company as well as a beneficiary under the family trust. It was established that Delgrove Holdings Pty Ltd engaged in the business of property acquisition for the purposes of generating rental income...

This book examines the principles and practice of real estate mortgages in an easily accessible text referenced to all the Australian States. It specifically deals with the major theoretical and practical aspects of the land mortgage, including vitiating factors in formation, mortgagees’ powers and duties and mortgagors’ rights – both statutory and other – as well as assignment, insurance and discharge. It focuses exclusively on real estate mortgages and provides a thorough account of the law through analysis of the plethora of court decisions and statutory provisions in this area. Duncan and Dixon analyse the substance of the mortgage transaction from creation through to rights of enforcement. In its detailed consideration of the rights and obligations of mortgagors and mortgagees, it covers topics such as priorities and tacking, insurance, variation and assignment, rights of discharge, entry into possession, foreclosure and power of sale. In addition, the book contains a separate chapter on factors that may affect the validity and enforcement of a mortgage, together with separate consideration of a mortgagee’s right to enforce a guarantee provided on behalf of a mortgagor, and the rights and liabilities associated with a receivership regime initiated by

The Queensland Court of Appeal recently handed down its decision in Caprice Property Holdings Pty Ltd v McLeay [2013] QCA 120. The decision considers the operation of the standard REIQ contract for the sale of land as it impacts on the time for settlement and the respective obligations of the buyer and the seller. The decision highlights both practical and legal issues arising from a failure to render performance at the stipulated time...

In Hauff v Miller [2013] QCA 48 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered an issue that has not previously arisen at appellate level. The case concerned the interaction of the well-known subject to finance clause and other standard contractual provisions...

The Reference Schedule to the REIQ houses and land contract and the lots in a Community Titles Scheme (“CTS”) contract has been amended to contain provision for disclosure concerning the installation of an approved safety switch. This section will not be required to be completed if the land is vacant (in the case of the houses and land contract) or if the present use is a commercial use (in the case of the lots in a CTS contract).

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Kellas-Sharpe v PSAL Ltd [2012] QCA 371 considered a not unusual provision in a loan agreement, being a provision whereby a lender agrees to accept a lower or concessional rate of interest in circumstances of prompt payment by the borrower. The loan agreement in question provided for the borrower to pay a standard rate of interest of 7.5% per month. However, if the borrower was not in default, the lender agreed to accept interest at a concessional rate of interest of 4% per month. The issue for determination by the Court of Appeal (McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Fryberg J) was whether the clause was subject to the equitable jurisdiction to relieve against penalties, and, if so, if the interest rate provision should be treated as a penalty making the interest rate provision void. In mounting this argument, the borrower was seeking to overturn a long line of authority which has repeatedly upheld the semantic distinction between an increase in the rate of interest (which attracts the doctrine concerning penalties) and an incentive to the borrower by way of a reduction in the interest rate for prompt payment (which does not attract the doctrine)...

For sale purposes, the question of who will be the registered owner of the property at completion is normally not difficult to answer. However, the decision in Rolls v Radford [2012] QSC 92 illustrates how things can go badly wrong...

This article examines the recently introduced Neighbourhood Disputes Resolution Act 2011 (Qld). The operation of the Act is considered as it impacts upon the responsibility of neighbours for dividing fences and trees as well as disclosure obligations associated with sale transactions. A particular focus of the article is the interrelationship of the disclosure obligations imposed by the Act with the operation of standard contractual warranties in Queensland.

This article examines recent changes to the Building Act 1975 (Qld) intended to promote pool safety in Queensland. The impact of these statutory changes is considered in relation to both compliance obligations and disclosure obligations associated with sale and leasing transactions. The interrelationship of these changes with the operation of standard contractual provisions in Queensland is also examined.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...

In the ongoing and spirited debate about the relative merits of an obligation of good faith in contractual performance and enforcement, widely divergent views have been expressed about the appropriateness and content of the putative obligation. However, relatively less time has been devoted to discussion of the sparseness of tools available to facilitate doctrinal development and the hurdles necessarily imposed by such limited doctrinal resources. This article seeks to examine the Australian doctrinal position against the backdrop of good faith as it finds application in the wider global context.

The decision of Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd was the subject of an article in an earlier edition of this journal. At that time, it was foreshadowed that the decision was to be taken on appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd v Wilson is considered in this article.

Prior to the decision of the High Court in Black v Garnock (2007) 230 CLR 438 it was an established principle in Queensland that a judgment creditor acting under an enforcement warrant could take no interest beyond what the judgment debtor could give. However, the decision of the High Court called this principle into question. This article examines the current position in the context of s 120 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) , Queensland Titles Office practice and standard contractual provisions. This examination is further informed by the recent decision of Martin J in Secure Funding Pty Ltd v Doneley [2010] QSC 91.

Great care is needed to ensure strict compliance with statutory disclosure obligations in conveyancing. The types of issues that may arise are well illustrated by the facts before the court in APM Property 3 Pty Ltd v Blondeau [2009] QSC 326, decision of Mullins J.

As dictated by s 213 of the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997 (Qld), the seller of a proposed lot is required to provide the buyer with a disclosure statement before the contract is entered into. Where the seller subsequently becomes aware that information contained in the disclosure statement was inaccurate when the contract was entered into or the disclosure statement would not be accurate if now given as a disclosure statement, the seller must, within 14 days, give the buyer a further statement rectifying the inaccuracies in the disclosure statement. Provided the contract has not been settled, where a further statement varies the disclosure statement to such a degree that the buyer would be materially prejudiced if compelled to complete the contract, the buyer may cancel the contract by written notice given to the seller within 14 days, or a longer period as agreed between the parties, after the seller gives the buyer the further statement. The term ‘material prejudice’ was considered by Wilson J in Wilson v Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd.

In conveyancing of all types, it is very common that a contract will only be formed after often lengthy negotiations which may involve a counter-offer or multiple counter-offers. At common law, the laws of contract that govern these arrangements are well known and well understood. However, the legislative overlay imposed by the requirements of the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) (‘PAMDA’) can create difficulties as illustrated by the result in Rice v Ray [2009] QDC 275.

A recent decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (Keane JA, Fryberg and Applegarth JJ) will be of considerable interest to conveyancers. The decision is Davidson v Bucknell [2009] QCA 383.

A number of recent legislative amendments impact on property law practice in Queensland. Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld) Body Corporate and Community Management Amendment Act 2009 (Qld) Residential Tenancies and Rooming Accommodation Act 2008 (Qld) Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) Vegetation Management and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2009 (Qld) Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld)

With an amalgam of statutory and common law duties, great care has always been required when considering the obligations of either mortgagees or receivers when exercising power of sale. Unfortunately, that position has only become more complicated with the enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld).

The enactment of the Property Law (Mortgagor Protection) Amendment Act 2008 (Qld), means that the obligations of a mortgagee exercising power of sale or a receiver selling have been substantially tightened in Queensland. Background As explained in the explanatory notes accompanying the legislation, with current global economic and financial circumstances, there were concerns about the position of mortgagors when mortgagees exercised their powers of sale. The objective of the amending legislation was to protect the interests of mortgagors by strengthening the statutory provisions relating to the duty of the mortgagee exercising power of sale to take reasonable care to ensure the property is sold at market value. The amending legislation was urgently passed without any consultation process.

A contract to buy or sell a home is the most important contract most people will ever make. It is crucial that the purchase or sale is made carefully and correctly. Similarly, maintaining a home and undertaking repairs or renovations can be significant aspects of life. This Chapter will explore these issues under the broad headings: • buying a home; • selling a home; and • building or renovating a home.